campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Structureless Chaos
Rather than a structure of Republican, Democrat, etc we should have a structure of INCEST, CROS-POLLINATION, etc. Some people want only to preach to the choir and are so insecure in their beliefs that they would never venture out of a tight little circle. Other people thrive on risk taking and discourse with those who disagree with them. spintreebob TEHE. I looked at it a second time, and it seems to be a rather far-flung organization. Chaos can also be structured. Perhaps, in all ways, we need to adhere to the KISS principle, organizationally, if only for me.MakharramKhan 04:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Here is a pretty good source for structure, linked to on the Forum Index page: http://openpolitics.ca/tiki-index.phpMakharramKhan 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC) :Interesting. But where is the discussion going on on that site? It looks well organized, but barren of any discourse, and no "talk" pages, even for articles. What am I missing here? - Nhprman 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC) This is certainly a cosmopolitan place. Why there is Matt Quigley the programmer scribbling Python 45 code, and over there Lucy Lawless Olmstead working on a architectual rendering. Yeah we need a couple civil engineers and some machinery to start building the road. I concur with everyone's thoughts here.MakharramKhan 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Though the website is young, there have already been numerous postings in several different topics. Unfortunately, the opinions and anecdotes given, while sometimes being well founded, are for the most part completely useless without a structure. Without a well defined area for constructing the point of view of certain groups (say, Republicans or Democrats), and another area for debating the key points of those views, this website will go down in a sea of opinions that absolutely nobody will want to wade through. So far, that is my idea of the structure: Places for iterating party platform, and a place to argue for or against those platforms. Mainly I'm posting this to get a discussion started, before we have a gang of Internet cowboys running all over the newly settled Wild Wild Wiki. Slacksimus 06:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Slacksimus Yeah, seconded. I think that the platforms will work themselves out because people, when writing the platform for their party/ideology, will want to sound like they aren't idiots, and will do a good job of making coherent, readable statements. The bigger problem is the issue pages, but I think that's fixable too, if everyone agrees to something. I'd suggest a sort of standard format, something like "brief summary of issue, list of discussion questions, list of possible viewpoints and the arguments for them, focusing on answering the discussion questions and not getting off topic, the end." But arguing and unstructured stuff belongs on talk pages and forums. Basically, if we're all wikipedia grade anal about factual accuracy, this could be the best resource in the world. As long as you can look something up and get coherent information and connections to other stuff, I'm pretty happy though. Duke stabbington 10:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :It does seem a little crazy around here right now.... With the initial rush of interest and the structure of the site I think the main thing now is to get an influx of new material and interest... I'd like to start putting in categories and subject portals to at least organize similar information at first an prevent duplication of effort. (I like the story about the designer who planned out a campus but did not set down where the sidewalks would be... when asked why not, he said he would wait and see where the grass became trampled, and set the sidewalks there; that's a bit like what I think of wikis.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I would discourage party affiliation as the primary organizational concept. A shadow side of internet dialogue is that it allows individuals to "socialize" with only those that reflect the viewpoint that they already had on the sat down to the discussion. I think the greatest benefit of a political wiki is the discussion of ideas grouped into categories (i.e. taxation, foreign policy, trade, etc.). This still runs the risk of devolving into polarizing diatribes within particular topics. However, hopefully the open nature of the wiki will separate the wheat from the chaff as it pertains to each issue. Ideally an issue-based structure could minimize bombing-throwing at the other side and cheerleading for our candidate and really zero in on intelligent dialogue. As a final note, much of political position stems from philosophy. What makes a "good society"? Politics is the attempt at creating a lived experience of this philosophical question. I am eager to see how those who begin with differing philosophical premises sort out the political answers to the "good society" question. Intergenerator 13:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)intergenerator Just to play devil's advocate (which I think all participants will have to be willing to do for this to work) I think there is a value to the typical polarized breakdown that naturally (or unnaturally) falls on the issues. And for the sake of example and simplicity, let's call it Democrat and Republican. Now, this whole wiki has been started because politics is broken. There's no discourse anymore, just spin and media streetfighting. If we could get some self-identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans (remember, I'm simplifying here) willing to bandy-about an issue in some well-thought-up debate-light format, we might be clever enough to come up with the agreed facts and common ground of an issue and an agreement on where the peoples' values and assumptions differ. Most of all, I would love if there were a respectful way of having one side challenge when the other side says something that is more "spin" than position. It would be interesting to create a testing ground where two people from opposite sides of an issue attempted to walk though such a process and have a peer-audience (judges in a way) observe and tweak the process of debate until a fruitful format resulted. I just feel that ignoring this natural polarization--pretending it's not there--is going to lead to squabbling over what the neutral facts and positions are. Assume there's going to be disagreement and create a structure in which to capture and harness it. murraytodd 20:14, 6 July 2006 murraytodd wrote: "It would be interesting to create a testing ground where two people from opposite sides of an issue attempted to walk though such a process and have a peer-audience (judges in a way) observe and tweak the process of debate until a fruitful format resulted." I like this idea. In particular, I would like to see Richard Heinberg and Greg Palast use this process to discuss energy policies or "peak oil." http://www.energybulletin.net/17914.html --Artie 22:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) I think we should define a platform and then we vote for the platform not the party. Then any individual that commits to supporting the platform "we the people define" can get the votes regardless of party affiliation. The idea is we would define policy that was balanced and did not favor special interests but the collective whole. If candidates commit to another well defined platform & policy we can see which one most aligns with the one that appeals to us an vote for that. If we have a baseline we can compare what is communicated in the various campaigns to determine who is most aligned with our intentions. RichardThomas 13:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I also second Slacksimus' original post and his concerns. I find most of the "issues" articles to be pretty much useless - just DAYS into the project. Some of them simply ask for Perspectives, which is actually not a bad way to approach an issue, since it lets the learning and sharing begin right away. But others are little more than opinionated, one-sided rants, and are not useful except to attack them or support them in endless pissing contests, either in the article itself or on the Talk page. This isn't "Hannity and Colmes," and yelling at one another about someone's one-sided rant isn't really a project worth pursuing. I suggest someone devise a template for articles on issues, and FAST. Leaving it for it to be "sorted out" in the future by the mob (as I fear was the plan) will not yield a Wikia that is worth visiting. It will just be the beginning of endless fights over process and format, not the intelligent issue-oriented debate that Jimbo Wales seems to have had in mind. - Nhprman 05:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC) I agree with Intergenerator that breaking things up to Republican and Democratic is not a good idea. This is because many of our problems with the MSM are that it reduces complex issues in to two sides when in fact there may be half a dozen or more perspectives. Basically, why re-invent the wheel we know is broken? --Noname123 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)